This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

Originally Posted by Erod

You do know the Drudge Retort is not the Drudge Report, right?

Ahhh.. Whoops. My mistake. I guess it's not true then.
Or wait.. we can see the emails... and see how they've been changed. Apparently there was a Benghazi cover up...Well, maybe it wasn't exactly a cover up. It was more like a made-up-cover-up.

Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

At last, something illegal and a coverup. Why else would Issa not be talking? Who's going to jail? that is what I want to know. Issa, Boehner? You know the leadership of the Repubs knew, they had to'

If this is true watch the RWs completely ignore it.

Heya Mak .....Yeah Until CBS put out the rest.

Rice's widely debunked remarks that cited protests over an anti-Islam video as the cause of the attack fueled the criticism of the administration and later cost her a chance at becoming secretary of state.

According to the 99 pages of emails, then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public.

In the original draft of the talking points, the CIA said the assault may have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate," CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reports.

But the first version also acknowledged that "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack" and that there had been "at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi" in the previous six months and that "we cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities."

Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15, scratched out from the CIA's early talking point drafts mentions of al Qaeda, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded
Timeline: How the probe unfolded

Intelligence officials told CBS News that Morell was worried that naming the terror groups would unnecessarily influence the FBI investigation. The intelligence community also wanted to protect classified information already pointing to possible culprits, Garrett reports.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.

The intelligence official said Morell was aware of Nuland's objections but did not make the changes under pressure from the State Department but because he independently shared the concerns.

That is contradicted in an email sent to Rice on Sept. 15 at 1:23 p.m. by a member of her staff whose name was blacked out. The email said Morell indicated he would work with Sullivan and Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, to revise the talking points. The intelligence official disputed that assertion and insisted Morell acted alone.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said of the emails, "I didn't find anything that looked like a smoking gun in terms of political cooking of the talking points. There is very little input from the White House."

But he said: "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame.".....snip~

Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

Do you see a smoking gun? I see nothing here that is not appropriate, unless, you have a very active imagination and use all that imagination to imagine wrongdoing.

Originally Posted by MMC

Heya Mak .....Yeah Until CBS put out the rest.

Rice's widely debunked remarks that cited protests over an anti-Islam video as the cause of the attack fueled the criticism of the administration and later cost her a chance at becoming secretary of state.

According to the 99 pages of emails, then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public.

In the original draft of the talking points, the CIA said the assault may have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate," CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reports.

But the first version also acknowledged that "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack" and that there had been "at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi" in the previous six months and that "we cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities."

Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15, scratched out from the CIA's early talking point drafts mentions of al Qaeda, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded
Timeline: How the probe unfolded

Intelligence officials told CBS News that Morell was worried that naming the terror groups would unnecessarily influence the FBI investigation. The intelligence community also wanted to protect classified information already pointing to possible culprits, Garrett reports.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.

The intelligence official said Morell was aware of Nuland's objections but did not make the changes under pressure from the State Department but because he independently shared the concerns.

That is contradicted in an email sent to Rice on Sept. 15 at 1:23 p.m. by a member of her staff whose name was blacked out. The email said Morell indicated he would work with Sullivan and Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, to revise the talking points. The intelligence official disputed that assertion and insisted Morell acted alone.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said of the emails, "I didn't find anything that looked like a smoking gun in terms of political cooking of the talking points. There is very little input from the White House."

But he said: "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame.".....snip~

In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa exclusively obtained by CNN, the co-chairmen behind an independent review of September's deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, expressed irritation over the House Oversight Committee chairman's portrayal of their work and requested he call a public hearing at which they can testify.

"The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers," wrote former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, co-chairmen of the Accountability Review Board that was convened to investigate the September 11th attack.

The dispute between Issa and the co-chairmen came to a head after neither Pickering nor Mullen attended a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing on the attacks, sparking a heated back and forth about who was invited and when. The rhetoric intensified Sunday during a highly contentious joint appearance with Issa and Pickering on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which Issa maintained the two "refused to come before our committee." Pickering insisted that he was not invited despite expressing a willingness to testify.

Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."

And there continues to be no there there so Issa and the after-birthers(tm) just make one up.

*edit... I just came up with that term to describe the ongoing conspiracy fabricators so if you see it on the Daily Show or whatever... you heard it here first. lol

Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

Do you see a smoking gun? I see nothing here that is not appropriate, unless, you have a very active imagination and use all that imagination to imagine wrongdoing.

Well, I did tell you to read Gloria Borgia's Report. Then there was also Peggy Noonan's. Seems there are a Couple news Sources that are onto what they are talking about.

Course it is no longer a Smoking Gun that the State Dept ignored Direct Warnings from the Libyans 48hrs in advance of the attack on the Diplomatic Facility. Nor is it a smoking gun that Nuland was doing all she could to prevent the State Dept from being thrown under the Bus. Due to all the failures that the ARB found.

Also BTW.....at the time of the Attack. There was No FBI investigation going on in Libya as Morell tried to tell people.

Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

Originally Posted by MMC

Well, I did tell you to read Gloria Borgia's Report. Then there was also Peggy Noonan's. Seems there are a Couple news Sources that are onto what they are talking about.

Course it is no longer a Smoking Gun that the State Dept ignored Direct Warnings from the Libyans 48hrs in advance of the attack on the Diplomatic Facility. Nor is it a smoking gun that Nuland was doing all she could to prevent the State Dept from being thrown under the Bus. Due to all the failures that the ARB found.

Also BTW.....at the time of the Attack. There was No FBI investigation going on in Libya as Morell tried to tell people.

The administration's objective was to protect Hillary and BHO.

"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa exclusively obtained by CNN, the co-chairmen behind an independent review of September's deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, expressed irritation over the House Oversight Committee chairman's portrayal of their work and requested he call a public hearing at which they can testify.

"The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers," wrote former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, co-chairmen of the Accountability Review Board that was convened to investigate the September 11th attack.

The dispute between Issa and the co-chairmen came to a head after neither Pickering nor Mullen attended a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing on the attacks, sparking a heated back and forth about who was invited and when. The rhetoric intensified Sunday during a highly contentious joint appearance with Issa and Pickering on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which Issa maintained the two "refused to come before our committee." Pickering insisted that he was not invited despite expressing a willingness to testify.

Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."

And there continues to be no there there so Issa and the after-birthers(tm) just make one up.

*edit... I just came up with that term to describe the ongoing conspiracy fabricators so if you see it on the Daily Show or whatever... you heard it here first. lol

You got THAT from Pickering and Issa's debate on Meet the Press ?

Wow, you guys are desperate.

It's not Issa's narrative that's falling apart as Pickering admitted the scope of their investigation was minimal.

It's not cool to make sh** up to cover your political asses.

That goes for Politicians and blind Obama supporters.

The Benghazi issue isn't going away Rob, no matter your mitigations and a little dust up on Meet the Press doesn't change the fact that Obama, Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice are up to their eyeballs in lies and false Narratives.

Hell, Carney and Obama were contradicting each other. Rob, something tells me you wish those "protestors" had finished the job.

Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

I appreciate you providing links for me. I had read it before and read it again when you posted the link again. Do you know how often host governments issue alerts to our diplomats, then how often is there an incident? I really dont know. If a warning absolutely never happens (rare) and whenever the host country issues the warning they are always right. Otherwise it is a judgement call. I still think this is much ado about absolutely nothing. I see no smoking gun. You realize Fox attempted to effect an election with even less evidence than this. That should be illegal.

Originally Posted by MMC

Well, I did tell you to read Gloria Borgia's Report. Then there was also Peggy Noonan's. Seems there are a Couple news Sources that are onto what they are talking about.

Course it is no longer a Smoking Gun that the State Dept ignored Direct Warnings from the Libyans 48hrs in advance of the attack on the Diplomatic Facility. Nor is it a smoking gun that Nuland was doing all she could to prevent the State Dept from being thrown under the Bus. Due to all the failures that the ARB found.

Also BTW.....at the time of the Attack. There was No FBI investigation going on in Libya as Morell tried to tell people.